# Another smoking ban article



## Plop007 (Jul 8, 2009)

Just posting this..

Smoking bans cut heart attacks by a third - Heart health- msnbc.com

comments?


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

They're focusing on cigarettes, and in all truth the noted people are reputable.

It's feasibly impossible to actually think that things like this wouldn't be reduced with such a ban, though of course drinking is higher now...

This doesn't really target cigars when you look into the background statistics and research so ehh...


----------



## slyder (Mar 17, 2009)

Total BS! Why dont they knock down all the burger kings and mcdonalds in the world and completely eliminate heart attacks all together? How about we outlaw booze too and save everybodies livers. This kinda crap just makes me wanna go postal.


----------



## Plop007 (Jul 8, 2009)

Well I know its talking about cigarettes but I just felt that since their talking about cigarettes and tobacco that the antis would just include cigars long with cigarettes.

since wouldn't people who smoke cigarettes feel discriminated if cigarettes were banned but not cigars?


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

slyder said:


> Total BS! Why dont they knock down all the burger kings and mcdonalds in the world and completely eliminate heart attacks all together? How about we outlaw booze too and save everybodies livers. This kinda crap just makes me wanna go postal.


You have to understand that in their eyes this is the first step. While food is necessary, in all truth smoking isn't, and so the plan calls for the removal of the unnecessary. If you look into the history of their plans and acts, you'll see that they fully intend to attack big food, as well as big tobacco and big alcohol. But before they can do that, they have to have the public on their side, and that means eliminating the "evil" smokers.

I can assure you that while people constantly use the excuse "well why not this too?" they don't seem to realize that they actually plan on doing it, but prohibition from the blue doesn't work well, and so this is their tactic.

You may or may not agree, but it is what they're doing.

Edit:

I could really care less about cigarette smokers being upset about anything, because they really don't have any excuse, and there are no positive benefits whatsoever.

Edit 2:

You should probably also know that there really is nothing you can do, as non smokers who want all smokers banned drastically outnumber the smokers or non smokers who don't want it banned.


----------



## zeavran1 (Aug 18, 2009)

Cigars will always be assumed to be used in studies like this because alot of people think the only thing worse than a cigarette is a cigar.


----------



## slyder (Mar 17, 2009)

so they are out to make the USA the most boring place on the planet?


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

Personally I can't see how the US would be boring if the unhealthy things were removed, especially after you remarked how they were so unhealthy...

Those things are either for relaxing, wasting time, or enjoying yourself, and while these are all good things in their own time (well aside from fast food), that doesn't mean they are all that the world has to offer. I try to focus on a more wider appreciation of life, instead of just focusing on a few things.

Point being, it won't change, and they will keep pushing until either something goes drastically wrong, or someone says NO, and they're important. They don't care how it affects the local bars, or what not... they care about public opinion, and as long as the majority says YAY, they will continue.

A thing you should know is that the anti-tobacco agencies and ban groups are very anti-tobacco because they've been affected by it themselves either directly or via family... it's a bit bias because it's completely full of these people.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Delsana said:


> You have to understand that in their eyes this is the first step. While food is necessary, in all truth smoking isn't, and so the plan calls for the removal of the unnecessary. If you look into the history of their plans and acts, you'll see that they fully intend to attack big food, as well as big tobacco and big alcohol. But before they can do that, they have to have the public on their side, and that means eliminating the "evil" smokers.
> 
> I can assure you that while people constantly use the excuse "well why not this too?" they don't seem to realize that they actually plan on doing it, but prohibition from the blue doesn't work well, and so this is their tactic.
> 
> ...


I agree in that the anti smokers dont really care what they do as long as they get their anti smoking agenda out there. While I read and watch what the facts are in regards to smoking and the health concerns that come with it we have to understand that "spin" is included with their facts. What they are not concerned with is what your "acceptable risk" is when you use tobacco but rather what their agenda is. They are against smoking of any kind in open or closed spaces for reasons that might or might not be accurate. I have to question their logic when there are far greater dangers out there when it concerns their health and they make this their Alamo. Why accept polluted waters and air as ok but personal choices of smoking tobacco as the ultimate taboo?


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

Cigary said:


> I agree in that the anti smokers dont really care what they do as long as they get their anti smoking agenda out there. While I read and watch what the facts are in regards to smoking and the health concerns that come with it we have to understand that "spin" is included with their facts. What they are not concerned with is what your "acceptable risk" is when you use tobacco but rather what their agenda is. They are against smoking of any kind in open or closed spaces for reasons that might or might not be accurate. I have to question their logic when there are far greater dangers out there when it concerns their health and they make this their Alamo. Why accept polluted waters and air as ok but personal choices of smoking tobacco as the ultimate taboo?


Polluted water is already being worked towards, as is air... it's not just one target, you have to understand that this one is simply the one progressing the fastest. There's a lot of support, and despite the spin on it, the fact remains they still have a lot of true arguments.

People want the world to "improve" and despite your own opinions, no one can truly argue against the fact that if no one drank, smoked, or did drugs, the world would be a much "cleaner" place, and that's their spin, that's their facts, and it's also their logic. The public wants this, even some of the private people want this, and it will happen, but it's not necessarily a "bad thing", it's just that the way they're doing it is more "totalitarianism" and it affects us in a way we can't input on.


----------



## Plop007 (Jul 8, 2009)

Those anti's may have some true arguments but those bastards are not taking us down without a fight.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Delsana said:


> Polluted water is already being worked towards, as is air... it's not just one target, you have to understand that this one is simply the one progressing the fastest. There's a lot of support, and despite the spin on it, the fact remains they still have a lot of true arguments.


Polluted water is being addressed as it is with air pollution but as long as we have had these "so called" programs in dealing with them we should have been able to "fix" these problems long before now. I understand that tobacco is the Poster Child for agendas and I am just talking about why their agenda seems to be on something that should be 4th or 5th in a list of bad things. Not trying to be argumentative or getting into a debate as far as what the real issue is but I don't quite understand your stance on being in a forum where you believe they have a right to shut down something that you say you support. If you feel that they have valid arguments ( which I don't when it comes to my choice to use tobacco products for myself ) what agenda do you stand behind? Are you for people to choose as to having rights to smoke or do you favor the opposite stance? I am a bit confused as to where you stand sometimes because you seem to favor playing a Devils Advocate role rather than saying what you believe.

I believe that each person has a right to choose for themselves if they want to use tobacco and should be able to do so without having to give up that right just because somebody else doesnt like it. If my usage does not infringe upon their rights why must I give up something that pleases me? I use other examples as air pollution and water which affects more people than smoking but that doesn't get top billing. The popular topic is tobacco as you said and its not about health as much as it is an agenda and that smacks of hypocrisy. ( this is becoming a rant that isnt my intent,,,Im just sick and tired of hearing how much people care about my health when they are busy sucking in fumes from factories and cars while drinking themselves into oblivion as they take all of their pharmaceuticals pills ):kev:


----------



## Plop007 (Jul 8, 2009)

Cigary said:


> Polluted water is being addressed as it is with air pollution but as long as we have had these "so called" programs in dealing with them we should have been able to "fix" these problems long before now. I understand that tobacco is the Poster Child for agendas and I am just talking about why their agenda seems to be on something that should be 4th or 5th in a list of bad things. Not trying to be argumentative or getting into a debate as far as what the real issue is but I don't quite understand your stance on being in a forum where you believe they have a right to shut down something that you say you support. If you feel that they have valid arguments ( which I don't when it comes to my choice to use tobacco products for myself ) what agenda do you stand behind? Are you for people to choose as to having rights to smoke or do you favor the opposite stance? I am a bit confused as to where you stand sometimes because you seem to favor playing a Devils Advocate role rather than saying what you believe.
> 
> I believe that each person has a right to choose for themselves if they want to use tobacco and should be able to do so without having to give up that right just because somebody else doesnt like it. If my usage does not infringe upon their rights why must I give up something that pleases me? I use other examples as air pollution and water which affects more people than smoking but that doesn't get top billing. The popular topic is tobacco as you said and its not about health as much as it is an agenda and that smacks of hypocrisy. ( this is becoming a rant that isnt my intent,,,Im just sick and tired of hearing how much people care about my health when they are busy sucking in fumes from factories and cars while drinking themselves into oblivion as they take all of their pharmaceuticals pills ):kev:


Can I get a Amen?

Great post man.


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

Cigary said:


> Polluted water is being addressed as it is with air pollution but as long as we have had these "so called" programs in dealing with them we should have been able to "fix" these problems long before now. I understand that tobacco is the Poster Child for agendas and I am just talking about why their agenda seems to be on something that should be 4th or 5th in a list of bad things. Not trying to be argumentative or getting into a debate as far as what the real issue is but I don't quite understand your stance on being in a forum where you believe they have a right to shut down something that you say you support. If you feel that they have valid arguments ( which I don't when it comes to my choice to use tobacco products for myself ) what agenda do you stand behind? Are you for people to choose as to having rights to smoke or do you favor the opposite stance? I am a bit confused as to where you stand sometimes because you seem to favor playing a Devils Advocate role rather than saying what you believe.
> 
> I believe that each person has a right to choose for themselves if they want to use tobacco and should be able to do so without having to give up that right just because somebody else doesnt like it. If my usage does not infringe upon their rights why must I give up something that pleases me? I use other examples as air pollution and water which affects more people than smoking but that doesn't get top billing. The popular topic is tobacco as you said and its not about health as much as it is an agenda and that smacks of hypocrisy. ( this is becoming a rant that isnt my intent,,,Im just sick and tired of hearing how much people care about my health when they are busy sucking in fumes from factories and cars while drinking themselves into oblivion as they take all of their pharmaceuticals pills ):kev:


Your last statement touched home on an issue the people against these associations have, and that's the constant use of excuses to allay blame or redirect the focus to different people. While they may not be perfect, no Human is, and I can assure you the people in these associations aren't the type doing the things you're stating.

As for cars, transportation is needed for our busy world, but electric (such as my soon to be Tesla sports car) bio-diesel, and solar cars are already being worked on and advanced, so they are taking a form towards that. I can't really take a statement towards alcohol but from what I know since they are also targeting that to a degree I can't see how they're partaking of it.

As for my stance, in simplest form it's the following:

I confirm what I do as "wrong" in some forms, and perhaps unhealthy, I also confirm that I've done my own research on what I can and cannot do in a form that is healthy or beneficial for me. This habit breeds camaraderie and relaxation in the worst or best of times, and is thus more healthy due to our need to be social and interactive creatures, then not partaking of it, however I make sure not to over-indulge. While I can understand it might be confusing why I would defend people against such things, it's because despite SOME of the hypocrisy and idiocy involved in their attempts, it is still a noble goal to improve the world, and I have no problem with them doing so, however I will admit not having a choice in the matter is bothersome but we can't have it all (that may sound defeatist, but I assure you it is simply the intention to see how things progress).

Point being, I'll defend your right to choose as you like, but I'll also defend their right to "upgrade and improve" the society, no matter how they see it as long as it doesn't prove problematic to society in general.

Intellectual and intelligent concepts, thesis, and conversations are what the world needs more of, and as I've stated in previous threads; if we can understand the opposing side, and their views without such aggression or confrontation, then we can then move on to beneficial solutions that don't hurt us all.


----------



## gjcab09 (Jul 12, 2009)

slyder said:


> so they are out to make the USA the most boring place on the planet?


No, they are out to control *every friggin' aspect* of your life that they don't feel is necessary for the good of the State.

I'm telling you, re-education camps are right around the corner...actually, they're already here, it's called the evening news, and the public school system.

Goes waaaaay beyond cigars, and I gotta stop reading this before my blood-pressure goes through the roof!


----------



## commonsenseman (Apr 18, 2008)

Delsana said:


> Point being, I'll defend your right to choose as you like, but I'll also defend their right to "upgrade and improve" the society, no matter how they see it as long as it doesn't prove problematic to society in general.
> 
> Intellectual and intelligent concepts, thesis, and conversations are what the world needs more of, and as I've stated in previous threads; if we can understand the opposing side, and their views without such aggression or confrontation, then we can then move on to beneficial solutions that don't hurt us all.


:grouphug:

Seriously, since when do liberty, freedom & personal responsibility have to do with anything? It's not like a free people should be able to choose for themselves or anything. Gosh I wish the government could help me decide what's bad for me........

:r:r:r


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Delsana said:


> Your last statement touched home on an issue the people against these associations have, and that's the constant use of excuses to allay blame or redirect the focus to different people. *I disagree with you here because it is not allaying blame because we are trying to make a stand against those who are not willing to stop with their rules and regulations. They are not stopping and they continue to run rampant with their agenda. If they truly were against what they say they were against they would attack those things that are really the core problem.*While they may not be perfect, no Human is, and I can assure you the people in these associations aren't the type doing the things you're stating. *I'm not saying they are bad people but rather they are people who are misdirected and yes, they are doing these things as I said because you see their footprints everywhere and they continue the attack in a blind and careless way. They feel their rights are being trampled so they attack those when we have tried to comply with smoking our tobacco outside, using tobacco products when they aren't nearby and that isn't enough for them. They want an absolute ban period and then they have the cojones to tell us not to use tobacco period as they munch on McDonalds that have a cholesterol rate that rivals clogged arteries in cadavers. We have complied with almost everything they have come after us with up to and including not smoking in cigar bars,,,now c'mon.*
> 
> As for cars, transportation is needed for our busy world,* well let's not attack something that we know kills people because air pollution is a real health issue and we don't want to step on the toes of an industry that makes money* but electric (such as my soon to be Tesla sports car) bio-diesel, and solar cars are already being worked on and advanced, so they are taking a form towards that. *Thank God they are doing something constructive after how many years now? *I can't really take a statement towards alcohol but from what I know since they are also targeting that to a degree I can't see how they're partaking of it. *I'd say it's because there is a lobby for alcohol that pretty much has enough money and power to kick anybodys butt when it comes to defending that industry. ( Remember Prohibition?)*
> 
> ...


:hippie::hippie:


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

I absolutely abhor the color red...

<.<

Your statements make sense, but they also give way to the fact that you know a lot of the things they'd try to fight against would be useless fights without more support or power (fast food, alcohol, cars) and they know that too because they've already tried and failed many times; however they also know that if they take out Big Tobacco, all of a sudden they will have that massive support and recognition they need to get things done.

As I said, no one can argue that removing the "impurities" of the world, would make the world a worse place, because that would be illogical and infeasible in any concept of thought, as they cause many a problems.

I agree they way they are doing it is a bit tyrannical, but you can't really state that you've gone "along" with their choices, after all you've tried to fight every one, and it's not like most of you did anything on your own to improve things... as that only happened when public outcry called out. I understand the point, but let's not kid ourselves on the fact this has been asked for a long time, and no one did anything about it, especially not the partakers.

You say you've been respectful and what not... but as I said the "cigar industry" is just a bonus for this, it's so much less than the cigarette industry which both pollutes, smells awful, induces massive amounts of liter, causes health problems, as well as a numerous trade of other things. The whole point, is that it's just being lobbed together, and that isn't going to change UNLESS you can give yourselves a DIFFERENT image.

I myself have seen courteous cigar smokers, and rude ones as well, it's pretty obvious what side the majority of smokers are on.

Your only chance to actually come out of this battle when it ends (probably in 3 - 5 years) without death, but instead scars, is to change your image... or at least make it better known.


----------



## commonsenseman (Apr 18, 2008)

I do not wish to argue any further on this matter. 

I would only like to add that I personally believe that we cigar/pipe smokers are a tougher breed than we get credit for. We have been & will continue to stand up for what we believe is right. I can’t speak for everyone, but I will be damned if I’m gonna let someone take my cigars away. Basic liberties have been taken away before unsuccessfully. Prohibition for example, did not work so well. All banning something like this does is create a black market for it. Weed is illegal yet it’s still readily available. 

As I’ve said before, they can have them when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

Delsana said:


> *I myself have seen courteous cigar smokers, and rude ones as well, it's pretty obvious what side the majority of smokers are on.*


And which side would that be?



Delsana said:


> Your only chance to actually come out of this battle when it ends (probably in 3 - 5 years) without death, but instead scars, is to *change your image*... or at least make it better known.


Who are you to tell anyone they need to change their image? Especially people you don't even know!

You see, most of us live by a standard of being polite and actually caring for others feelings. I am sure you have seen the term BOTL here. Well, that stands for Brother of the Leaf. In other words we treat and respect each other as brothers. We travel all around the country just to meet each other because we are truly a compassionate and caring group of people.

Please do not lump the whole brotherhood together just because there may be a few a-holes out there.

BTW I am also a cigarette smoker.


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

madurolover said:


> And which side would that be?
> 
> Who are you to tell anyone they need to change their image? Especially people you don't even know!
> 
> ...


My stances don't change in that regard, as it would make me a hypocrite. (However if you partake of cigars... it makes no sense to me why you would do the other)

Mmm perhaps I'll explain in a different manner. Unlike the many I see that are in an uproar against these groups; I've actually talked with people in them, as well as people who agreed with them, and I proved that with a positive outlook and intelligent discussion, they can be "reasoned" with, however the issue is that they don't see the majority of smokers of any form being like this, and while they can easily differentiate between chewing, cigarettes, and cigars; they focus on the fact that it has to be all or nothing, it's their "chance" so to speak, an opportunity given to them to take out one of the "evils" while they have such a chance, which will undoubtedly lead them to fighting against the other "evils".

That's why I say the only possible way for you to survive their onslaught (which is supported by vast numbers of anti smokers, concerned citizens, smoke-nazi's, and people who don't care one way or the other) is to change the image, and make it less aggressive towards them, and instead try to understand, and show that. It's not a case of me telling you what to do, it's a case of relaying the blatant facts and their own focuses, as well as stating the only real way that things will be fixed without a further uproar.

I mistyped on the point of courtesy so allow me to modify that.

I have seen numerous cigarette smokers who are very very rude and impolite, as well as some who aren't, but these are in the minority. The same goes for cigar smokers, however I will admit that myself included we are generally much more courteous than the others, until of course problems begin to form that we disagree with, and for some unfortunate reason people respond in aggressive and confrontational manners, and not the polite and intelligent form that will actually accomplish something.

Yelling at it, doesn't fix anything.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

So in your estimation the anti-smoke groups are courteous and polite while us smokers are not?

It takes a lot to get me angry but these groups make my blood boil. Personally I would like to put my cigar out in one of their eyes.

I also think that vegetarians should be banned, afterall have you ever smelled the gas from one of them? It is terrible what with all the beans, sprouts, and junk they eat. They also do far more to pollute the atmosphere than smokers do. Of course just like you, this is only my opinion.

Also you are truly delusional if you think that the majority of it has anything to do with "saving the planet or concerns about fellow mans health". It is about control, plain and simple! :2


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Delsana said:


> I absolutely abhor the color red...
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

madurolover said:


> So in your estimation the anti-smoke groups are courteous and polite while us smokers are not?
> 
> It takes a lot to get me angry but these groups make my blood boil. Personally I would like to put my cigar out in one of their eyes.
> 
> ...


It is never the event that has mattered in our history, it is the aftermath. This has been proven time and time again. While they may not be focusing on it entirely (I can assure you some are) what happens after their goals are met is what the world is waiting to see.

And please do not stick words in my mouth... if I did not say it, then I did not mean it.

Your aggression towards them, is the problem, and is the fuel and ammunition which they use against you.

Edit:

As you wish, but have it known that while topics like this exist with one side of the axis portrayed, I will be here to portray the other.

As for the pie, no thank you I'll take some cheesecake instead.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

Delsana said:


> It is never the event that has mattered in our history, it is the aftermath. This has been proven time and time again. While they may not be focusing on it entirely (I can assure you some are) what happens after their goals are met is what the world is waiting to see.
> 
> And please do not stick words in my mouth... if I did not say it, then I did not mean it.
> 
> ...


The bolded part is where you are absolutely, 100% wrong. They are the aggressors. I know you consider yourself an intellectual but maybe you should try viewing the world with your eyes and mind open instead of closed.

The only question I have for you is, do you smoke?


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

madurolover said:


> The bolded part is where you are absolutely, 100% wrong. They are the aggressors. I know you consider yourself an intellectual but maybe you should try viewing the world with your eyes and mind open instead of closed.
> 
> The only question I have for you is, do you smoke?


I advise you to read my statements if that is not already apparent.

From my research and from what I've seen, they weren't aggressive at first, they asked kindly, they did things to fix things without real aggression or anger... and people didn't like that, so now they try a more confrontational approach, and instead of replying with intelligence and reasoning and discussion, you also reply in confrontational forms, and so it's not anyone's fault for starting it per-say, but it is everyone's fault for the way it continues to be.

Yelling at people, fixes nothing, and confrontation only begets confrontation, as they have shown, and you have made.

While it's true I prefer the intellectual side as well as playing the devil's advocate and the Laissez-faire approach, it should also be known that I do very much know what is going on in the world, and I simply focus on the fact that aggression and the current responses don't fix anything, and never will...

While it can be argued they too should show a lack of confrontation, it can also be said that they already did, and that didn't work, however it would be nice if they reverted to that and everyone discussed properly and intelligently, but in reality they don't need to do that anymore... they are winning the war, slowly but surely. The only choice left to make is what the casualties will be, and what the surrender agreement will become.

I simply firmly believe, we have already lost... we just haven't seen how yet, and thus I would much prefer to come out with something, rather than nothing... and the only way to do that is to change our appearance... which is what I work towards in all aspects, during my life.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

madurolover said:


> do you smoke?


^^^^

Or possibly we are pissed about our rights being trampled on. You know, kinda like those who settled this great country. :ask:


----------



## danmcmartin (Jul 25, 2009)

gjcab09 said:


> No, they are out to control *every friggin' aspect* of your life that they don't feel is necessary for the good of the State.
> 
> I'm telling you, re-education camps are right around the corner...actually, they're already here, it's called the evening news, and the public school system.
> 
> Goes waaaaay beyond cigars, and I gotta stop reading this before my blood-pressure goes through the roof!


:clap2: Well said! :beerchug:

I stand by my post from the other smoking ban thread:

" ...its not about smoke, its about control. Its not about global warming, its not about health care and its not about taxes. Its all about control. Control of your life, your activities and your thinking. Some folks can't handle the fact that others choose a different lifestyle, habit or activity. As soon as we start to feel we have to look at things from their point of view, we've lost. I'm not saying that some people don't have legitimate gripes about smoking, health care or climate change, but when they become shrill, irrational and unreasonable, they aren't worth understanding anymore. There are people that don't want to be understood, reasoned with or talked too, they want you to stop doing whatever it is that offends them and they want it now."

Maybe we need smoking ban section under Tobacco Legislation. Sheesh!


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

madurolover said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Or possibly we are pissed about our rights being trampled on. You know, kinda like those who settled this great country. :ask:


First off be wary when you involve the liberties of our "great country".

It should readily be apparent that due to the statutes being vague, America has interpreted nearly all of the ways this country works, and as such they could be ENTIRELY different than what the founders wanted.

Also, the reason this country was made was because of taxation, the martial law, and because they TRIED to talk intelligent and discuss things properly, and they were ignored and only met with more aggression. In this case, the precedent falls on the anti smoker groups being ignored, and thus taking force, not on your side.

However, I stand by what I will continue to state until the end of time.

Confrontation is not what will work... you don't have many of a choice any more, the battle has already been lost... the only issue is how long will it take to understand this, and what will be saved from the wrath of these agencies and interest groups.

Edit:

Numerous times I have stated that I partake yes, however I am very health-conscious, make sure not to over-indulge, and appreciate it more for the camaraderie and relaxation in the times of great strife, that it brings... (and is something so rare these days) which is NOT something I want to be taken away true, however I am willing to make sacrifices (not complete loss) so as to better the world, if that becomes the desire of the people.

Edit 2:

While SOME OF IT (and not MUCH) is about control, you are seriously misleading yourselves in an attempt to make yourselves and your opinions seem more "factual", if you believe that none of it is helpful, or good.

Global warming has already been scientifically proven and can be re proven by your own research if you ever so choose. While yes, the government wants to control what you do, they also have to do something... and that means fixing things. Point being there are several ozone tears that aren't repairing due to focused pollution... and will NEVER be fixed until such a thing is stopped.

The point is not control in this discussion, regardless of even if that was the initial focus, it is the AFTERMATH that matters, and if it fixes something, then so be it.

Hiroshima was nuked, and it wasn't a big choice for those that did it... we all lament it, but if we hadn't the war would have gone on. Control, and stopping the war yes... but it lead to peace and it lead to more than just that.

(I apologize, my grammar and English skills seem to have decreased in this statement.. I will most likely polish it up later on)


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

I am sorry that you feel that "you" have lost the battle. As for me, I have lost nothing and do not plan on it.

With that said, i am stepping out of this thread and having a cigar and a drink of 'shine so that my head may level off once again.

Good day all!


----------



## commonsenseman (Apr 18, 2008)

Delsana said:


> First off be wary when you involve the liberties of our "great country".


What are you implying here?



Delsana said:


> It should readily be apparent that due to the statutes being vague, America has interpreted nearly all of the ways this country works, and as such they could be ENTIRELY different than what the founders wanted.


"A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have."



Delsana said:


> Also, the reason this country was made was because of taxation, the martial law, and because they TRIED to talk intelligent and discuss things properly, and they were ignored and only met with more aggression. In this case, the precedent falls on the anti smoker groups being ignored, and thus taking force, not on your side.


First of all what the hell does that have to do with cigars? Second, you are exactly right, people like this & like you cannot be reasoned with, that's why we must fight for our RIGHTS. We will not let people take these things away, just because some people say it's bad for us, I don't need a nanny-state to help me figure out that cigars are bad for me. I don't care if they are & I will continue to smoke them regardless of what anyone says.



Delsana said:


> the battle has already been lost...


Quitter.



Delsana said:


> however I am willing to make sacrifices.....so as to better the world, if that becomes the desire of the people.


Our liberties have been trampled enough, I will not give things up I care about "for the good of the state".



Delsana said:


> While SOME OF IT (and not MUCH) is about control, you are seriously misleading yourselves in an attempt to make yourselves and your opinions seem more "factual", if you believe that none of it is helpful, or good.


Do not fool yourself, it IS about control.



Delsana said:


> Global warming has already been scientifically proven and can be re proven by your own research if you ever so choose. While yes, the government wants to control what you do, they also have to do something... and that means fixing things. Point being there are several ozone tears that aren't repairing due to focused pollution... and will NEVER be fixed until such a thing is stopped.


Regardless of what you say, global warming has not been proven, that's why it's been changed to "climate change". The earth has been in a cooling cycle lately, which didn't really fit in to Al Gore's model. Wierd how the earth warms, then cools, almost like a cycle or something.


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

Yes, it is a cycle... the issue is that the ozone tears still exist... and the "temperature cycle" is becoming more and more... different than it should be.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

Let's get this back on the topic of tobacco legislation and off the topic of global warming or climate change or whatever the buzzword is today.

Thanks guys.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

*I know you are a Bible student so let me answer you with something that you probably forgot to read in your studies. This thread has gone on for enough time so that we are well aware of what your thoughts are and yet you do not seem to want to let this go.*





Delsana said:


> I advise you to read my statements if that is not already apparent.
> *Read Proverbs 18:2*
> 
> From my research and from what I've seen, they weren't aggressive at first, they asked kindly, they did things to fix things without real aggression or anger... and people didn't like that, so now they try a more confrontational approach, and instead of replying with intelligence and reasoning and discussion, you also reply in confrontational forms, and so it's not anyone's fault for starting it per-say, but it is everyone's fault for the way it continues to be. *Proverbs 17:10*
> ...


*Where you once had our attention at the beginning of this thread you began to lose us once you took the stance that your intellect was better than ours and you kept on telling us that your grasp of this subject matter was even higher. Your behavior suggests that you are more interested in proving a point you believe in rather than to learn what the facts are. You will read in Proverbs how a fool continues to speak their mind only because they want to prove their intellect and what happens is that they show what a fool really looks like. Put the shovel down and redirect your energy to something more worthwhile than a daily debate.:lock1:*


----------



## FrayAdjacent (Sep 1, 2009)

Bans suck. Even though I abhor the smell of cigarettes, I can't stand banning them, or banning them in places where you'd expect people to smoke.


----------



## danmcmartin (Jul 25, 2009)

Delsana said:


> First off be wary when you involve the liberties of our "great country".
> 
> It should readily be apparent that due to the statutes being vague, America has interpreted nearly all of the ways this country works, and as such they could be ENTIRELY different than what the founders wanted.


It is likely that the United States today is different than the Founding Fathers intended, but it is not due to lack of understanding. They left behind many writings besides the founding documents (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). Many wrote extensively about their intent. They had their own debates, most of it recorded in written form. We know exactly what they intended. In fact, they warned us in many of those writings about the situation we find ourselves in now, if only generally.

The Congress, President and Supreme Court have at times chosen to ignore what the Founding Fathers set forth (not to mention the states abdicating their autonomy over the last two centuries), but it hasn't been because we don't know what the Founding Fathers intended.


----------



## Plop007 (Jul 8, 2009)

Delsana said:


> First off be wary when you involve the liberties of our "great country".
> 
> It should readily be apparent that due to the statutes being vague, America has interpreted nearly all of the ways this country works, and as such they could be ENTIRELY different than what the founders wanted.
> 
> ...


Just wondering if we can't confront them(the mofos who want to ban cigars) What should we do about the antis? I want to enjoy smoking cigars till the day I die. I dont want them taking my cigars away from me. I mean I love cigars and truely enjoy them.

Look I'm all into peaceful talkings but if they wanna throw down lets go.

-just tired of all the bans
-tax increases
-other daily bs.

Sorry abour ranting and sounding pissed but I just don't want to get stepped on.


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

Cigary said:


> *I know you are a Bible student so let me answer you with something that you probably forgot to read in your studies. This thread has gone on for enough time so that we are well aware of what your thoughts are and yet you do not seem to want to let this go.*
> 
> *Where you once had our attention at the beginning of this thread you began to lose us once you took the stance that your intellect was better than ours and you kept on telling us that your grasp of this subject matter was even higher. Your behavior suggests that you are more interested in proving a point you believe in rather than to learn what the facts are. You will read in Proverbs how a fool continues to speak their mind only because they want to prove their intellect and what happens is that they show what a fool really looks like. Put the shovel down and redirect your energy to something more worthwhile than a daily debate.:lock1:*


.... Err...

After reviewing all my statements, I can assure you that they were not intended for what you seem to think the sole purpose of them was. In truth, they were logical responses, not meant to prove intellect or become better than others, simply to give a side to the unrepresented. A logical and well researched and understood side with no improper statements, at that.

If it seemed otherwise, I do sincerely apologize.

Edits:

Bans are always like that... which is why instead of ranting and being angry about things; discussing it with them, and involving ourselves in the actual events, is a good idea. If we don't, then it will be banned and we'll just have no say.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Delsana said:


> .... Err...
> 
> After reviewing all my statements, I can assure you that they were not intended for what you seem to think the sole purpose of them was. In truth, they were logical responses, not meant to prove intellect or become better than others, simply to give a side to the unrepresented. A logical and well researched and understood side with no improper statements, at that.
> 
> ...


I will say this, Delsana,,,you are a different duck. At times I'm not sure if your elevator is stuck between floors or you just love to debate subjects more than you love the subject matter.


----------



## Delsana (Sep 14, 2009)

Cigary said:


> I will say this, Delsana,,,you are a different duck. At times I'm not sure if your elevator is stuck between floors or you just love to debate subjects more than you love the subject matter.


Perhaps it's the fact that the elevator was turned into a gravitiy lift long ago, and instead of it being on Sublevel - 320 Sector N, it's all the way at Level 17... enjoy the stair ride, because it doesn't go "UP" from that section anymore.

Debate is fun, but intellectual discussion and education, learning, or betterment is even better. I see opportunity whenever I am encountered with arguments.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Delsana said:


> Perhaps it's the fact that the elevator was turned into a gravitiy lift long ago, and instead of it being on Sublevel - 320 Sector N, it's all the way at Level 17... enjoy the stair ride, because it doesn't go "UP" from that section anymore.
> 
> Debate is fun, but intellectual discussion and education, learning, or betterment is even better. I see opportunity whenever I am encountered with arguments.


Most people drink from the fountain of knowledge, some only gargle.

Delsana, you're killin me!:dance:


----------



## commonsenseman (Apr 18, 2008)

op2:

This thread has become very entertaining.


----------



## eyesack (Jul 19, 2009)

Cigary said:


> Most people drink from the fountain of knowledge, some only gargle.
> 
> Delsana, you're killin me!


Aw CRAP! Gary, you mean to tell me that it's NOT like MOUTHWASH?!?!?! My dad always DID tell me to RTFM... (Read The 'Friendly' Manual)*mutters curses under his breath* ahahaha

Well, some might gargle... Just don't be the one to drown in the gene pool! =P


----------



## eyesack (Jul 19, 2009)

Delsana said:


> .... Err...
> 
> After reviewing all my statements, I can assure you that they were not intended for what you seem to think the sole purpose of them was. In truth, they were logical responses, not meant to prove intellect or become better than others, simply to give a side to the unrepresented. A logical and well researched and understood side with no improper statements, at that.
> 
> ...


I can use big words too... SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS! UNNNH! CHICKUN WING!


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

I think this one has run it's course.


----------

